Why double horns and a "ron" question. - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Full Range

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 13th October 2007, 01:45 AM   #1
gnugear is offline gnugear  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Default Why double horns and a "ron" question.

Okay, last two questions before I start the table saw and commit to my build of a z-horn heruka for my Fostex 168e full range drivers.

Why do people build double horns (with the opening on the top and bottom). Is it simply to extend bass response?

Also, how does the "ron" Austin A166 Mk II sound. I know it's made for the 166 but will it sound good with the 168e? Seems like a lot of folks like the Austin built for the Fostex 126.

The Austin A166MK II looks like it might be an easier build than the Heruka?
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th October 2007, 07:35 AM   #2
germpod is offline germpod  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
I only have experience with Harveys using fe126 drivers but I built mine because I really like the look of double horns. I will try other enclosures but doubt that I will not be able to beat the look of my Harveys.

There are likely much better reasons for double horns though
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th October 2007, 07:59 AM   #3
TerryO is offline TerryO  United States
diyAudio Member
 
TerryO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Seattle,Wash.
Quote:
Originally posted by germpod
I only have experience with Harveys using fe126 drivers but I built mine because I really like the look of double horns. I will try other enclosures but doubt that I will not be able to beat the look of my Harveys.

There are likely much better reasons for double horns though

I'm no horn expert, but I'd say that the double horn affords a greater total area for the horn mouth on an "affordable" footprint. Frankly, unless you have things on the wall that you need to access, most of the space above a speaker is wasted. If you (or your S.O.) like the look of a vertical double horn, then it's a good way to go.

Best Regards,
TerryO
__________________
"If you have to ask why, then you're probably on the right track."
quote from Terry Olson's DIYaudio Forum application
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th October 2007, 12:47 PM   #4
ronc is offline ronc  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Dont know, never heard one. PPL who have built the A166/168 truly like them. Corner loaded to the low 40s,wall loaded to the mid 40s.
Effective mouth size,corner loaded , is very large using the deflectors as it turns the horn into a front firing and allows controlled expansion from the corner thru the distance of the cab sides where the wavefront recombines to form a singular front.
I designed in a great deal of mechanical damping at low frequencies and let the TL/horn action do the work. This gives greater cone control so higher SPLs can be achieved without distortion.
Once you understand the loadin(damping) curve you design in a XO that allows the horn action to roll off and the Fc becomes something like an IB with the higher frequency waves attenuating in the horn path.
The A166/168 is probably the best application of the Austin principal which is a tight initial (low M) flare rate exiting into a conical flare (lowers LF distortion) which interfaces with a wave splitter (deflector) which continues expansion along the cab sides which recombines to form a singular wavefront.
All in all its a time consuming effort with my clunky programming,probably Martin can develop somthing more user friendly.

ron
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th October 2007, 01:28 PM   #5
diyAudio Member
 
Scottmoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
There's a few reasons which I've mentioned in the revised text for the Spawn page[s] & should hopefully appear shortly.

Assuming forward-firing, greater mouth size for the footprint is one reason; there's more tuning flexibility (i.e there are 'interesting' things you can do ), & imaging is better than a shorter, wider box in left-right & front-back domains.

TC when he first doubled over one of his favourite horn designs also noted improved midbass punch over the single design. Was this just because he'd doubled over an existing cabinet? Ultimate extension is unlikely to have changed for him, but the transition from QW to horn-loading would have occured at a lower frequency due to the larger mouth. FWIW, I suspect this was partly, but not entirely it, because I've noticed even with the BVR types, or those specifically designed from the outset as double horns, the over-under mouth layout does give a particularly dynamic sounding midbass.

Are these types ultimately 'better' than other appoaches? I don't think so; they're just different. Another option for people should they wish.
__________________
Community site www.frugal-horn.com Commercial site www.wodendesign.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th October 2007, 03:46 PM   #6
hm is offline hm  Europe
diyAudio Member
 
hm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: near Hamburg Germany
Hello,

in my double horns:
Saxophon, Trombone, Posaune,

i realized a new construction feature:
membran movement cross setting for bass
and bass horn mouth distance to reduce
150-300 Hz.

The enclosure is smaller as for one driver
same bass, and smaller without press chambers
by using mouth distance.

Trombone free plan, cheap and a lot of 3" drivers work.

http://www.hm-moreart.de/24.htm
Attached Images
File Type: jpg saxophoninnen1.jpg (30.8 KB, 903 views)
__________________
http://www.hm-moreart.de
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th October 2007, 10:26 PM   #7
ronc is offline ronc  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
A builders comments.


That's why I'm so excited about Ron's Austin designs.
So much more advanced modeling, being able to combine horn action with TL action, etc.
I built a pair for 166s and they are unreal.
Smooth Frequency Response to 40 Hz, then gradual roll off.
Pink Floyd playing as loud as my Klipsch 301 PA speakers, and the cone barely moves...
Unscrew the driver a little to give a slight air leak, volume goes down, SQ goes way down, and its moving in & out like crazy.
Sound stage is bigger than the room, and as my wife said, you can point to exactly where each timpani is.
I'm gonna put my HDTs on Audiogone.
Robert
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th October 2007, 10:28 PM   #8
Variac is offline Variac  United States
diyAudio Editor
 
Variac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: San Francisco, USA
The double horn may allow each one to be tuned slightly differently possibly removing the depth and height of some peaks and dips..
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th October 2007, 10:40 PM   #9
ronc is offline ronc  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
The double horn may allow each one to be tuned slightly differently possibly removing the depth and height of some peaks and dips..

Interesting concept, however the curve combines the actions into a singular wavefront.

ron
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th October 2007, 10:47 PM   #10
diyAudio Member
 
Scottmoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Yeah, the lower horn could be tuned ~1/2 octave higher or whatever is appropriate to the design to balance the response of the two paths, should that be wanted. The really simple BVRs also have some interesting scope for tuning, as the slot-vents are easy to adjust, like any BR box. I prefer your take though Ron, with the curve you added to Chang to combine the two into a single vent.. much simpler & more elegant solution. There's beauty in simplicity (and symmetry).

I can't do refined like Ron sadly, so for long-path boxes I have to resort to more traditional approaches -hyperbolic, max-gain designs damped to taste (OK, I try to pull a few of Olson's tricks with the filter chamber & layout of the initial expansion to squeeze as much as I can from the basic design). Doesn't stop me learning / wanting to learn of course & using different flare profiles for different stages is something I'm very interested in.
__________________
Community site www.frugal-horn.com Commercial site www.wodendesign.com
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FS: NOS TDA1541A S2 "Double Crown" adhoc Swap Meet 14 14th March 2009 07:50 PM
"Double powersupply" LM3875 gain clone OA51 Chip Amps 21 8th March 2005 09:16 AM
1541A double crown "original" ? syscall Digital Source 2 18th May 2004 03:26 PM
A real DAC Philips TDA1541A "Double Crown"? dbhh Digital Source 17 7th May 2004 05:15 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:05 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2